Katie Engelhart writes in the progressive Huffington Post that governments owe women an apology on behalf of their men. She actually seems to want reparations for women but figures that won't happen, so she'll settle for an apology.

"Do governments owe women an apology? Over the last few years, women's groups have been pushing reticent governments to acknowledge their role in specific acts of cruelty against women.. . . . But what I'm talking about is an apology that has nothing to do with rape, sterilization, imprisonment, or torture. I'm talking about an apology for the decades and centuries that women were simply treated like crap.

"It's interesting that while states have offered formal apologies to almost every conceivable group -- for every conceivable wrong -- no state has apologized wholeheartedly to its women, on behalf of its men."

It's the usual feminist victimhood blather bordering on the pathological that blinks at the fact that, historically, men have been treated like "crap" by forces more powerful than them, including a hell of a lot of wealthy women, to at least the same degree as women, and probably to a much greater degree.

Ms. Engelhart cherry picks her examples of oppression, of course, and she's particularly obsessed with the gender wage gap. That's interesting, because the wage gap is attributable to choices women make, and no apology is owed for it.

And, naturally, like the best cherry pickers, Engelhart leaves out some biggies that just happen to be monopolized by male victims (you know, involuntary conscription, war casualties, workplace injuries and deaths, homelessness, suicides, all but one of the 15 leading causes of death etc.).

Forget the fact that society's underbelly -- which includes the insane and the forgotten living under bridges -- has a penis. None of that matters because it doesn't fit Katie Engelhart's victim narrative.

Engelhart's piece raises a bigger question: what is it about women demanding apologies to their entire gender from men?

Tiger Woods should apologize to all women, one female writer wrote, for what he did in his personal life.

Attorney Gloria Allred said that Mel Gibson should apologize to "all women" for telling his partner, "if you get raped by a pack of n*****s, it will be your fault." (Oh -- Allred said that Gibson should also apologize to African American men -- but note she puts women first).

Sarah Palin said David Letterman owed an apology to young women across the country for his joke that Palin's daughter got "knocked up" by New York Yankee third baseman Alex Rodriguez during a trip to New York.

Notice Tiger Woods need not apologize to all men for fortifying the awful "cheating husband" stereotype. Letterman need not apologize to all men for suggesting that men will fuck anything that moves. And no state owes men an apology for anything.

If Tiger, Mel, and Letterman owe "all" women an apology for the things they did, why, they must be stand-in's for all men. Each of the incidents complained about represents an assault by all men against all women.

Come on, ladies, time to grow up. The '60s are over.

Whatever trouble Tiger Woods and Mel Gibson were having in their private relationships was just that -- private. Both seem to be first-class jerks, but all womanhood isn't victimized by them.

A stupid joke that referenced both a male and a female wasn't an assault on all things female anymore than it was an assault on all things male. It was just a stupid joke.

And no state owes all women an apology, much less reparations. For anything.

Seriously. Time to stop using your gender as a club to take the moral high ground. Time to stop pretending that women, as a class, have a monopoly on virtue, and that men, as a class, have a monopoly on vice. That's just childish.

A man's life is in tatters over what might just be a false rape claim. And hardly anyone gives a damn. Another "he said/she said" date rape claim ends with a not guilty verdict for the man accused, former Cleveland sportscaster Terry Brooks, but not before he lost his job and saw his good name dragged through the mud.

Mr. Brooks was found not guilty of raping a 22-year-old woman in September 2009. The woman's anonymity is preserved by compact of the US news media, while Mr. Brooks' name will be forever associated with the term "rape." Even though the only two people who will ever know for sure what happened are Mr. Brooks and the unnamed accuser.

The alleged victim claimed she and Brooks met for drinks at a local bar and that she drank too much throughout the evening. After supposedly becoming very intoxicated, she agreed to have Brooks give her a ride home. The woman claimed, instead of driving to her house, Brooks drove to his South Euclid home and raped her.

Mr. Brooks claimed the sex was consensual. There was no physical evidence in the case. The alleged victim waited four months to come forward.

A classic "he said/she said" case, right? Yet, when Mr. Brooks was indicted for this alleged crime last August, his station involuntarily "placed [him] on a leave of absence until the facts are determined and we can evaluate his future with the station." He ended up resigning from his position as weekend sports anchor at WEWS on Oct. 7, two months after the indictment was announced.

After the trial, a man who identified himself only as the father of the alleged victim yelled at Brooks, "You are not going to get away with it. Trust me, I do not appreciate what's gone on. She's a good daughter. And if she said he did it, he did it."

So, yet another case where the very accusation against a presumptively innocent man became its own conviction. A man's life is in tatters over what might just be a false rape claim. And hardly anyone gives a damn.

It's as if the public humiliation to a man accused of rape is a fitting punishment because, after all, he must have done "something."

It is difficult enough for innocent men and boys who are forced to defend against rape lies. It is nearly impossible for them when the government deprives them of a fair trial by hiding evidence that could prove their innocence. The following news story is a very troubling case that speaks for itself.Police accused of hiding evidence in rape case

OFFICERS from the Australian Federal Police allegedly stole and concealed documents that could have helped a former pilot and businessman fight allegations he had raped a 14-year-old girl in PNG.

Fred Martens, a millionaire working in Papua New Guinea, served more than 2½ years in prison after being convicted under Australian child sex tourism laws. But after his family found some of the missing documents he earned a rare second appeal in November 2009 and had his conviction quashed.

In two multimillion-dollar compensation claims Mr Martens, 62, is now suing the Australian and PNG governments, and members of the AFP and PNG police, over their alleged misconduct. The claims allege his false prosecution led to the failure of his businesses and the loss of PNG assets - including 11 boats, six planes and dozens of construction and earth-moving vehicles.

This is the latest in a series of embarrassing cases involving the AFP, which last month settled a claim with the Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef. Former Guantanamo detainee Mamdouh Habib has also received compensation from the federal government, while actor Paul Hogan is considering suing the government over its failed prosecution of him on tax matters.

Mr Martens accuses an AFP agent of perjury, trying to cover up problems with the investigation, perverting the course of justice and malicious prosecution. The officer had tried to ''amass evidence to bolster a case against [Mr Martens] regardless of its truth or falsity'', ''deliberately ignored obvious inconsistencies'' in the girl's statements, and agreed with PNG officers to conceal various documents, the damages claim says.

The girl, who cannot be named, said Mr Martens had twice - in March and mid-September 2001 - flown her from her home in Western Province to the capital, Port Moresby, where she applied for a passport and visa to attend school in Australia. She said during the second trip she stayed at his home, where she was assaulted. But Mr Martens insisted he had only flown her to Port Moresby once, in August 2001, and that they had stayed in separate rooms at the home of his friend. He also denies he ever assaulted her.

Soon after his arrest in August 2004 he had asked investigating AFP agents to obtain various records and documents about his flights and her passport application, which he said would prove the girl's statement was wrong.

But many of these documents, which could prove the flight was in August, were never produced at his trial. He was convicted and lost an appeal, but was later granted a second review.

The missing records that formed the centre of the case, and compensation claim, are:

The girl's certified passport application.

Plane refuelling records.

Civil aviation flight invoices.

Australian immigration records of his movements.

The AFP officer stated in an affidavit that the girl's passport application could not be produced because it had been stolen from the PNG immigration office. But a PNG police officer later swore two AFP officers had removed the application, months before Mr Martens was charged.

A statement from a doctor who certified the photos taken for the girl's passport application, confirming when she was in Port Moresby, was also never produced in court, according to his PNG compensation claim.

PNG police said they had inquired about refuelling records, but they approached the wrong fuel company in the wrong town and no records were provided, the compensation claim alleges.

The AFP officer swore PNG's Civil Aviation Authority had advised it had not kept records of the flight. But Mr Martens's partner later obtained records of the plane's take-offs, movements and landings over the counter from the authority.

In the appeal judgment, the court found it reflected poorly on the AFP that it had failed to find the flight records. ''Had [they] been put into evidence at the trial it would not have been open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the petitioner was guilty.''

The AFP officer also said that Australian immigration files showed Mr Martens was in PNG at the time of both alleged flights, attaching a typed version of Australian records. But Mr Martens later obtained the full records under Australian freedom-of-information laws showing he was in Australia at the time of the alleged first flight and near the Indonesian border at the time of the alleged rape in September.

The Australian damages claim also says a complaint by his family to the AFP's standards and ethics unit was investigated by one of the agents who had been seconded to PNG for the original investigation. The complaint was dismissed.

In a brief response to the Australian claim, the Australian government and one AFP agent argue his claim was ''irregular'', had been laid under the wrong law and in the wrong court. An application to have the claim thrown out of court is to be heard in Cairns in mid-February.

It is difficult enough for innocent men and boys who are forced to defend against rape lies. It is nearly impossible for them when the government deprives them of a fair trial by hiding evidence that could prove their innocence. The following news story is a very troubling case that speaks for itself.

Police were dispatched to the 5100 block of Oakton Street in Skokie, Ill. on Jan. 11 about 7 p.m. regarding a caller who said she was being raped. Police later realized the call was made from a stolen cell phone. They contacted the original owner who said she was fine. The woman said she suspected a former friend took her phone.

Police were dispatched to the 5100 block of Oakton Street in Skokie, Ill. on Jan. 11 about 7 p.m. regarding a caller who said she was being raped. Police later realized the call was made from a stolen cell phone. They contacted the original owner who said she was fine. The woman said she suspected a former friend took her phone.

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Oliver Bateman, a columnist for the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania college paper The Pitt News, has written a satirical Valentine's Day piece that purported to be a guide to romance for guys. Read it for yourself to see if you agree that there was nothing remotely offensive about it, to anyone. Among other things, Mr. Bateman wrote the following:

"Now that you’ve got her laughing, it’s time to schedule the date. Few meals are as sensual as a big pizza dinner, so take her to one of those local pizzerias and buy a couple of $5 pies. If you’re both over 21 years old, try to find one that either sells beer or lets you drink it — nothing loosens up a girl quite like a case or two of Yuengling Original Black & Tan."

Pretty lighthearted, right? Not so fast. A member of the Campus Women’s Organization named Robin Lane wasn't just offended, she was apoplectic. Don't rely on me, read it for yourself.

Among Lane's various hysterical, overblown-to-the-point-of-dishonest indictments of this innocuous bit of fluff is the following breathtaking apotheosis:

"We can only imagine what Bateman means by suggesting that men buy women lots of beer to 'loosen [them] up.' Between 25 percent and 50 percent of female college students experience sexual assault, and 50 percent of these assaults involve alcohol consumption, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse. Forget 'seducing the sweetie,' why not just call the article 'date rape for the modern Joe'?"

Lane's opinion is so preposterous that it is unworthy of any serious rebuttal, but it is well to highlight two aspects of it, if only for comic relief on a cold Saturday afternoon in January.

First: The most obvious inanity: that up to 50 percent of female college students experience sexual assault. This, of course, would make our college campuses more dangerous places than the Tadmor Prison in Syria, where the bloodthirsty guards butcher inmates with axes for the fun of it.

We have repeatedly disposed of similar assertions on this blog and won't repeat ourselves in this post. Among many other writers, Heather MacDonald ably demonstrated the absurdity of the sexual grievance industry's claim that one-in-four college women will be raped or the targets of attempted rape: "If the one-in-four statistic is correct—it is sometimes modified to 'one-in-five to one-in-four'—campus rape represents a crime wave of unprecedented proportions. No crime, much less one as serious as rape, has a victimization rate remotely approaching 20 or 25 percent, even over many years. The 2006 violent crime rate in Detroit, one of the most violent cities in America, was 2,400 murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults per 100,000 inhabitants—a rate of 2.4 percent. The one-in-four statistic would mean that every year, millions of young women graduate who have suffered the most terrifying assault, short of murder, that a woman can experience. Such a crime wave would require nothing less than a state of emergency—Take Back the Night rallies and 24-hour hotlines would hardly be adequate to counter this tsunami of sexual violence. Admissions policies letting in tens of thousands of vicious criminals would require a complete revision, perhaps banning boys entirely. The nation’s nearly 10 million female undergrads would need to take the most stringent safety precautions. Certainly, they would have to alter their sexual behavior radically to avoid falling prey to the rape epidemic."

Second: Robin Lane's attempt to tie Mr. Bateman's harmless discussion about beer on a date to date rape -- a leap that is not supported by any logic taught at the University of Pittsburgh -- does nothing more than play into the worst man-hating stereotypes about feminists. Unfortunately, and ironically, it also manages to trivialize the very thing she is supposedly advocating against, rape. Sadly, I doubt that many feminists will take Robin Lane to task for her histrionics. They should, because it is opinions such as Robin Lane's that engender disrepute of her movement and that preclude any hope of productive dialogue with people like her.

Today, a Pitt alumni named Erik Hinton utterly destroyed Robin Lane's letter with a logic and an eloquence that deserves to be repeated here:

Oliver Bateman’s Valentine’s Day piece: What began as an allegation of bad taste has become — according to one student’s Facebook wall — a campaign to “twist the knife” to ruin Bateman’s career. This furor is about a column that allegedly encourages sexual assault. How so? Bateman caricatures college dating life: wooing a girl with a pizza, two cases of beer, a goatee and a scalp massage. No sex occurs, no sex is intimated, no sex is advised. “Date rape” is an absurd conclusion.

You see, this is how real damage happens. These are the social and rhetorical strategies that marginalize, that shut people up: equivocation, name-calling, vicious backchannels. When “let’s start a conversation” becomes “let’s distort and destroy,” possible progress ends. Dialogue stops. Witch hunts begin. And no, these people are not radical outliers. Though Campus Women’s Organization has stepped back and is encouraging allies not to personally insult Oliver, its original letter was an ad hominem attack: “We wonder if Bateman has taken the time to get to know any women as individuals.”

What’s worse, these straw-men battles undercut legitimate causes. Advocacy groups stop looking forward and content themselves with ritualistic passion plays. Finding big targets on which to pin “sexist” or “oppressor” is a tired tradition. The most recent CWO publication on the matter is a lengthy, patronizing essay on how “real” progressives admit their wrongs. No one is talking about issues, just the social theater surrounding them. We need true dialogue, debate, education. Not grandstanding and moralizing.

Friday, January 28, 2011

A follow-up to our previous post here. The conviction of a 16-year-old girl for falsely claiming she was raped by a younger boy is causing massive alarm among anti-rape campaigners, The Guardian reports: "The case has caused alarm among anti-rape campaigners and legal experts who believe it is yet another example of the increasing readiness of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to pursue women – or in this case a girl – who in their eyes falsely claim rape."The Guardian continues: "Campaigners strongly criticised the decision to prosecute the girl and said such cases put women off reporting rape." Lisa Longstaff, of Women Against Rape, said: "Every prosecution [of false rape claims] puts women who have been raped off reporting it." She added: "We ask the DPP, when over 90% of rapists go free, is prosecuting a 16-year-old justice?" See here. Ms. Longstaff said it was "awful" that this girl was prosecuted. See here.

______________________

Down, down, down the rabbit hole we tumble. A teenage girl was convicted for lying about one of the most serious matters imaginable -- that a boy raped her -- yet, we are told, she should not be prosecuted. Women should be free to lie about rape without fear of prosecution in the interest of getting actual rape victims to come forward. (Presumably, Lisa Longstaff, quoted above, would not want a 15-year-old rapist to be let off with just a caution because of his tender age or for any other reason. She once said this: "It is pretty shocking that anyone is cautioned for rape." See here.)

The campaign to stop prosecuting women who make false rape claims isn't new for Ms. Longstaff. She once called such efforts "a concerted witchhunt." See here. Yet, in case after case after case that we report here on this blog, false rape claimants typically are not prosecuted; and if they are, they are afforded the most lenient of punishments. It is often the case that the the men and boys they've falsely accused spend more time behind bars than they do. Ms. Longstaff is also on record as opposing anonymity for men accused, but not convicted, of rape. See here. But of course, she favors anonymity for women who make rape accusations. See here.

Let us examine the rationales posited by the Ms. Longstaff/the sexual grievance industry supporting the argument that this case should not have been prosecuted:

Women are not reporting because false rape claims are being prosecuted.

This would mean that we we can only combat one form of criminality, namely rape, by ignoring other serious criminality, namely lying that a male raped a female. We can only wage the "war on rape" by elevating the victimization of one group of our citizens, our daughters, over that of another, our sons. Our sons are just unfortunate but necessary collateral damage in the "more important" war on rape. In other words, we must not only tolerate but tacitly encourage women and girls to lie about rape with impunity as the price of encouraging women, in general, to come forward and report their rapes.

Such advocacy is not merely unjust, it is morally grotesque.

If anything more needs to be said about this premise, which is grounded in a sort of ugly feminist bloodlust --payback for the perceived past sins of the patriarchy -- it should be noted that it is not even accurate. Recent scholarship shows that the unnecessary gender politicization of rape renders it impossible to discern whether underreporting even exists, much less its extent. See, J. Fennel, Punishment by Another Name: The Inherent Overreaching in Sexually Dangerous Person Commitments, 35 N.E.J. on Crim. & Civ. Con. 37, 49-51 (2009).

If underreporting does exist, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the proposition that holding a liar accountable for her lies will significantly deter women from reporting legitimate rapes. The head of RAINN recently explained that women are not principally failing to report rape due to a fear of being disbelieved. They are principally not reporting because "they don't want their loved ones to know what happened; they're ashamed themselves; they just want to put it all behind them." See here. But why let facts get in the way of a good feminist victim narrative?

Over 90% of rapists go free.This is dishonest in the extreme. Last year, the Stern Review in the UK said that claims such as this -- by rape advocates -- might actually put women off from reporting. Here is why:

In the UK, the Home Office, and politicians seeking to jack up rape convictions, have long cited the attrition rate for rape, which is the number of convictions as a percentage of number of reported crimes. That rate is 6%. But, the Home Office, and everyone, uses the conviction rate (the number of convictions secured against the number of persons brought to trial for that given offence) for all other crimes.

In fact, the conviction rate for rape is 58%.

The result of such dishonest advocacy has been to make it appear that law enforcement is terribly, and uniquely, ineffective when it comes to rape.

Please re-read that and make sure you understand it: the feminists who dominate the public discourse about rape in the UK have long insisted that only 6% of "rapists" are convicted, as opposed to the correct figure: 58%. Stern Review, see page 45. Rape is the only crime judged by the attrition rate. All others – murder, assault, robbery, and so on – are assessed by their conviction rates. That is dishonesty of Biblical proportions.

And -- pay attention to this -- the Stern Review noted that use of the attrition rate instead of the conviction rate "may well have discouraged some victims from reporting." Stern Review, see page 45 (emphasis added).

You want to know who is discouraging rape victims from coming forward? The same people complaining about this girl being prosecuted.

Refusing to prosecute false rape claimants will hurt innocent men and boys.

The advocacy is unconscionable because it fails even to acknowledge, much less address, the harm to innocent men and boys accused of false rape claims. False accusations of rape have severely stigmatized more human beings than false accusations of any other crime. The public scorn from false rape claims has caused innocent men and boys to be killed and to kill themselves; to be beaten, to be chased, to be spat upon, and to be looked upon with suspicion long after they are cleared of wrongdoing. They lose not only their good names but often their jobs, their businesses, and their friends. It is often impossible for the falsely accused to ever obtain gainful employment once the lie hits the news: for the rest of his life, a falsely accused man will have prospective employers Googling his name and discovering the horrid accusation.

If you want example of these atrocities, you need not look back to the hanging trees of the Deep South. Spend a week or two scrolling through this site.

So why was this case against the teen girl prosecuted? According to The Guardian, because of the harm to the boy. And it's about time a victim of a false rape claim isn't treated as flotsam:

"The police insist they were right to pursue the girl, partly to help restore the boy's reputation. Forest of Dean Detective Sergeant Mark Stenhouse said: 'We take all rape allegations extremely seriously and thoroughly investigate any that are brought to our attention. . . .. We are very conscious of the needs of youngsters which is why we also had to consider the impact on the 14-year-old boy who had been accused. The impact on his life has been terrible and the case has caused great distress to him and his family. With his reputation cleared we hope he can go on to rebuild his life and get over this period.'"

"A CPS spokesperson said it had carefully considered whether it was in the public interest to prosecute the girl. 'We concluded it was as she made an extremely serious allegation which was strongly undermined by the evidence, including witness statements. And her victim suffered serious repercussions as people he knew believed he was a rapist, and treated him as such.'"

"The boy's parents told the Guardian they believed the trial had helped. 'She put us through hell,' his father said. 'My son has had threats and abuse from other kids. He tends to keep himself to himself more and when he does go out we're worried about him.

"'It was terrible when he was arrested. His mum was in hysterics. All we wanted was for her to admit it didn't happen but she never has. The case has given us some sort of closure.' Would he welcome a custodial sentence for the girl? 'If it stops someone else doing the same thing, yes.'"

Refusing to prosecute false rape claimants will hurt rape victims.

For every criminal act, our society accepts the notion that punishing the wrongdoer will promote, among other things, deterrence. In false rape case after case after case, judges and law enforcement officials bemoan the harm to actual rape victims done by the lies of false accusers. So how do we stop the lies? That's a great question since the sexual grievance industry does not want us to deter rape liars. The liars should be permitted to lie with impunity, thus encouraging other women and girls to lie about rape. And with every rape lie, the integrity of rape victims is diminished.

A follow-up to our previous post here. The conviction of a 16-year-old girl for falsely claiming she was raped by a younger boy is causing massive alarm among anti-rape campaigners, The Guardian reports: "The case has caused alarm among anti-rape campaigners and legal experts who believe it is yet another example of the increasing readiness of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to pursue women – or in this case a girl – who in their eyes falsely claim rape."

We are seeing a rash of baseball players being accused of rape. In the past few weeks, we've seen stories about Lenny Dykstra, Johan Santana, and Garrett Wittels. Add two more college baseball players to the list, this time, from the University of Louisiana at Monroe. They were accused of rape last November after a wild night of partying that ended in an alcohol-fueled threesome. On the basis of nothing more than a "he said/she said" allegation, the men were charged with aggravated rape; suspended from their team; and had their names dragged through the mud. She, of course, retained her anonymity in the news reports.

But yesterday afternoon, a Grand Jury in Ouachita Parish found insufficient evidence to indict the two young men. See here

If you think that it's grossly unfair that we allow presumptively innocent young men to be treated as if they are guilty on the basis of nothing more than an unsubstantiated allegation by a lone accuser, you'd be right. Our society attaches a wholly unjustified and mind-numbingly irrational sanctity to naked rape allegations.

For example, when a rape allegation is leveled against a college athlete, if the college fails to kowtow to the angry bow wow of the feminist sexual grievance industry and suspend him from the team at least until the charges are dropped, the college's administrators will be accused of not taking rape seriously. Not the allegation of a rape, but rape itself. The allegation thus becomes its own conviction. For sexually active young men on campus, it is Salem, Massachusetts, 1692.

Until we can change it, that is the milieu we are stranded in, and young men need to better adapt to it. Even though the young men in this case were cleared, this is a cautionary tale for all sexually active young men. The circumstances of the charges here were all-too common: the young people were drinking, and they engaged in a threesome which would be very difficult for her to explain after-the-fact. Those things are recipes for disaster.

We have highlighted the situations where false rape claims are more likely to occur here: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-to-avoid-false-rape-charge.html. One of the common danger situations involves mixing sex and excessive alcohol. The alcohol-fueled hook-up culture is a disaster for both men and women. To suggest that couples should never drink and fool around denies eons of accumulated knowledge about gender relations. Couples often drink to lower inhibitions, knowing full well where it will lead. It's drinking to excess that's the problem, especially for college-aged couples and slightly older. Asking the police or a jury to sort out what happened afterwards based on a "he said/she said" account puts an impossible burden on our law enforcement and judicial apparatuses. Young men looking to "score" in that situation need to understand that (1) when women drink to excess, at some point, they lose the ability to factually and legally consent, and the breaking point is very difficult to discern; and (2) women experience much greater after-the-fact regret than men do. Sometimes feelings of regret are translated into feelings of "being used," and sometimes feelings of "being used" are misinterpreted or purposefully misconstrued as "rape." Unfortunately, it is the politically correct thing to urge young women to party like the guys -- without bothering to tell them about the regret asymmetry that separates the genders.

Another of the danger situations involves "one girl/more than one guy." This is a recipe for a false rape claim. Ground zero, in fact. We've seen this multiple times. The reasons are obvious: how on earth can she possibly explain this to a boyfriend, a parent, or a friend? How will she hold her head up on campus? Most sane young women will deeply regret that encounter after-the-fact and will worry that if word got out, it would destroy what's left of her reputation. (And she will worry that one of the young men she had sex with will brag about it.) The fear of "slut shaming," as the feminists call it, seems to spawn off-the-charts regret, and that is a false rape claim waiting-to-happen. Men should never, ever put themselves in this awful situation.

The circumstances surrounding the instant charges were difficult to track down. One news story chronicled the charges in detail, but it disappeared from the newspaper's Web site. We were able to find and retrieve it, and we post it here:

Conflicting statements made in rape case against two University of Louisiana Monroe athletes

No court dates have been set in the case of two University of Louisiana at Monroe athletes accused of the aggravated rape of an intoxicated female.

Monroe police filed an affidavit in support of arrest warrants for Shelby Esters Aulds, 21, and Kendall Scott Thamm, 20, Friday in Fourth Judicial District Court. The two men turned themselves in to Ouachita Correctional Center Friday afternoon and were each booked on one count of aggravated rape. Both posted $15,000 bond each and have since been released from jail.

According to court documents, Monroe police were contacted Nov. 12 after an 18-year-old female went to a local hospital and said she had been raped.

The victim told detectives that she had been at a nightclub the prior night and had been drinking. She said she met Aulds and Thamm at the club. After they left the club, the victim told police they went to someone's apartment to hang out.

The victim reportedly drank some more and left that apartment and went downstairs to Thamm's apartment.

The victim told police that she and Aulds began kissing when he got forceful with her and the two engaged in sexual activity. Thamm reportedly came into the room and also began being forceful with her, according to the victim. The woman told police she was forced to have intercourse with Thamm while continuing to participate in sexual activity with Aulds. She said she began crying and they stopped and Aulds left.

The victim told police that she got dressed and left a short time later.

The two suspects said the incident happened in a different manner.

Aulds told detectives that after coming home from the nightclub, he and the victim had consensual sex at Thamm's apartment. He said the two were still in the bed together and cuddling when Thamm joined them and began kissing the victim. Both suspects began interacting with the female, and Aulds said once Thamm began having intercourse with her, he left. Both suspects maintained the interaction was consensual and Thamm said that when the victim became emotional and started crying while having sex with him, he stopped when she said so.

The female then reportedly got dressed and left the apartment and refused a ride home from Thamm.

Aulds, of 111 Briarcliff Drive, West Monroe, and Thamm, of Baytown, Texas, are both students at ULM and members of the Warhawk Baseball Team. Aulds is a sophomore right-hand pitcher who lettered in baseball and football for West Monroe High School. This is Aulds' first season on the team.

Thamm is a junior college transfer who signed with ULM last year and reported to campus in August for the fall semester.

Over the weekend, ULM suspended both men from the baseball team pending an investigation. On Monday, the university released a statement after being asked if the two would still be allowed to attend classes. The statement read that the "decision will be made by the University Conduct Standards Office pending their investigation."

. . . as discussed in this post. The bill would set the wheels in motion to allow physical castration, as two other states already allow.

The bill makes no provision for mutilating female sex offenders. What are we to make out of that? Are we to take it that biology -- that testicles -- really do make a difference? That rape, that sexual assault, are not crimes of "power" as we are always told but are inextricably tied to the male sex drive? To testicles? One would think feminists would oppose this bill because it is premised on that understanding, but I haven't heard any rumbling about it in the feminist blogosphere.

This bill is troubling for a host of reasons. Among other things, every year, men are falsely accused and wrongly convicted of sex crimes. Once a man is castrated -- apologies to all the people who love to use this lovely expression -- it's just not possible to "grow a pair."

The following story is astounding. It's believed to be a false rape claim, but the reporter and his or her editor couldn't resist writing it up as if a rape had occurred. The story asserts that "The schoolgirl, from Tilehurst, was attacked...." Meaning, what? That there was a rape, of course. And the only fair conclusion from that is that the young man arrested is a rapist. It doesn't matter that it is believed to be a false claim: she was raped -- not she "reported" or "alleged" she was raped -- and he did it. Period. And yet the title of the piece plainly states, that it was a false claim.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

There are two men and a woman in this T Mobile commercial. Watch the You Tube video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFjVZizLVE4. The older man is a stereotypical, greedy capitalist. The young man is such a complete dunce, despite his cocksure demeanor, that the smart, beautiful woman can't help but laugh at him.

Ads, to varying degrees, hold a mirror up to wider social beliefs. This article sums up how women as a class treat men as a class in our modern, enlightened society. It's only natural that ads would echo these attitudes.

The following comment under the You Tube post of the T Mobile ad sums up not just this ad, but the way American television marketing portrays the genders: "Love this commercial, the girl (T mobile) looks so weak﻿ compared to the stronger man (I phone 4). Yet, she is the one who is stronger and smarter. The shritless guy is to look stupid and weak. Awesome! Girls Rock!" cutegirl00179 8 hours ago cutegirl00179

A follow up to our story HERE. As you read the story below, keep in mind that four young men were arrested and interrogated for 11-and-one-half to 17 hours each, on the say so of one young woman. She lied about three of the men while she was on bail after the first rape lie. (It is astounding that the police treated these latter three claims seriously in light of the fact she was on bail for a false rape lie.)

For what other crime does our society hand to one class of citizens the unfettered power to have another class of citizens deprived of their liberty solely on their say so? The fact that four young men could be terrified in this manner, by a young rape liar who used the police apparatus as her muscle, tells us that there is something very wrong with the system.

YOUNG WOMAN JAILED FOR TWO YEARS FOR FALSE RAPE CLAIMS AGAINST FOUR MEN

A woman from Reading has been jailed for two years for making two false allegations of rapes against four men, according to police. Emma Blunden, 21, from College Piece, Mortimer, Reading, Berkshire, was sentenced at Reading Crown Court having been convicted of two counts of perverting the course of justice at the same court in December.

Blunden reported to police on July 26, 2008, that she had been raped by a 26-year-old man in a hostel where she was living in Newbury. Police then arrested the man who was questioned for 17 hours before police realised he was innocent and released him. Blunden boasted about having sex with this particular man and sent him a text message to apologise for getting him arrested. This lie was a misguided attempt to win back a former boyfriend.

She was then arrested herself and interviewed about her false allegations but released so that police could investigate further. While out on bail, on February 4 she went to a party and flirted with a man before letting three men have sex with her in a communal bathroom, one after another. She then left the party and dialled 999 to say that her train fare money had been stolen; then she added that she had been gang raped by two 21-year-old men, and one 23-year-old man.

On her word, these three men were taken into custody and needlessly questioned for 11-and-one-half to 13 hours each, before they were released without charge.

A Thames Valley Police spokesman said that after extensive investigations into both incidents, Blunden was charged with two counts of perverting the course of justice.

Detective Sergeant Evans said: "This sentence sends out a very strong message to people who falsely report any type of crime, not only rapes.

"Making false reports of crime is a very serious offence and Blunden has made false allegations about very serious incidents on two separate occasions. A huge amount of police officers' time went into investigating both of these incidents, taking officers away from helping genuine victims of crime.

"Three men were also arrested following her initial reports and they had to endure some intimate forensic examinations.

"We always take reports of rape very seriously, but when we find reports to have been made up we will investigate them just as vigorously.

"We will take action against anyone who reports a false crime and wastes police time."

"Blunden now has a considerable period of time to reflect on the seriousness of her actions."

Another woman in her late teens has lied about rape to gain sympathy, and once again, she will not serve any time behind bars.Jemma Knights, 18, pleaded guilty to wasting police time at Lowestoft Magistrates’ Court. Magistrates heard that Knights, who lives in support housing, told police in July she had been raped. Knights had falsely claimed she was raped to try and make friends with someone at the college she was going to. Between July and October, Lowestoft police wasted 37 hours investigating the rape claim, which Knights eventually told officers was made up. She was given a six- month community supervision order yesterday.

(It is not clear, but from what we can piece together, Knights might have had a 19-year-old man arrested last July. See here.)

Among the innumerable myths posited by the sexual grievance industry to justify its existence is that women don't lie about rape because they would not subject themselves to a "second rape" at the hands of our law enforcement apparatuses. This, of course, is a flat-out lie, and every day, we report on case after case after case that exposes the lie.

If young women are willing to destroy the life of a male they know for no reason other than to gain sympathy -- and, sadly, that is common -- not only does the "second rape" myth need to permanently retired, but young men have much to fear.

WESTMINSTER – A former Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy pleaded guilty Thursday to falsely reporting that her ex-husband was sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl and to firing a gun in her Westminster home.

Patricia Margaret Bojorquez was convicted of a felony count of grossly negligent discharge of a firearm and a misdemeanor count of filing a false police report and was sentenced to a year in jail, according to Orange County Superior Court Records.

On Nov. 18, 2009, Bojorquez called Huntington Beach police to report that her ex-husband was sexually assaulting a 13-year-old relative after prosecutors say she became upset over a child custody issue. Officers determined that the 13-year-old had not been molested.

On Jan. 9, 2010, Bojorquez's brother and fiancé called police after she fired a gun that pierced the bedroom window of her Westminster home and exited toward a residential street where children were playing, prosecutors said.

Bojorquez was already on DUI probation after previously pleading guilty to driving under the influence on two separate occasions, the Orange County District Attorney's office said.

On Aug. 10, 2009, Bojorquez drove her two children to the Block at Orange with a .19 blood alcohol level, more than twice the legal limit, prosecutors said.

On April 15, 2010, she backed into a parked car while driving in a Huntington Beach parking lot with a blood alcohol level of .27, prosecutors said. A witness reported that she was naked from the waist down and had an open bottle of wine in the cup holder of her car, prosecutors said.

Along with her jail sentence, Bojorquez was sentenced to five years probation, including a term that she not own or possess any firearms, prosecutors said.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

When it comes to men who are charged with or convicted of sex offenses, no "science" is too other-worldly, too primitive, too bizarre, or too inhumane to try on them. Things more appropriate to a witch doctor's practice than a serious physician's are employed with seeming relish and without so much as a murmer from the general public. It’s for that reason that penile plethysmograph testing, a sort a junk science polygraph of penises, and masturbation satiation sessions, where teens and men are forced to masturbate to "cure" their deviancy, are standard techniques to both treat male sex offenders and to decide whether they should be released from custody. We also know that untold numbers of innocent men were convicted of sexually abusing their young daughters years after the alleged crimes on the basis of their adult daughter's supposed recovered memories, another discredited wacko theory.

But here's one to top all the others. A Virginia lawmaker is floating the most barbaric idea possible for treating his state's convicted sex offenders: physical castration -- the "surgical" removal of the testicles.

Republican State Sen. Emmett Hanger has introduced a bill that would have state agencies study whether Virginia should start castrating sex offenders instead of confining them to treatment programs after they get out of jail. In 2007, then-Gov. Timothy Kaine vetoed a similar bill.

Hanger's critics call the idea barbaric, because that's what it is, but Hanger said it would save the state money and could provide a "cure." See here.

Virginia wouldn't be alone in the testicle mutilation business. While eight other states allow for some form of castration for sex offenders, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, only Louisiana and Texas (of course!) allow for physical castration. In contrast, chemical castration through medications merely reduce testosterone, which fuels a man's sex drive. See here.

It does not appear that a court has definitively decided whether the obviously cruel and unusual punishment of surgical castration runs afoul of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments.

Mary Devoy, founder of Reform Sex Offender Laws of Virginia, called Hanger's proposal "a great bill with one shocking flaw." Can you guess? "When abuse and mutilation of a human being is presented as an acceptable alternative to responsible treatment and housing for those deemed as sexually violent predators there exists a fault of reason." See here.

Exactly, Ms. Devoy.

We see another fundamental problem with Sen. Hanger's bill that should permanently relegate it to the wastepaper bin: In all of Senator Hanger's pronouncements about "cures" and about saving the state money, has he given even a passing thought to the possibility that after he allows a man's balls to be cut off, it might turn out that the man was actually innocent?

The girl might recant; alibi witnesses might come forward; exculpatory evidence might surface. And then what do we do?

Glue them back on?

Mutter "Sorry about that!"?

Somehow, I doubt that "I'm sorry" will cut it.

Does it sound far-fetched that a man convicted of a sex offense might just turn out to be innocent? Then you haven't been reading this blog for long, have you? And you've obviously never heard of the Innocence Project. Such cases are not uncommon.

While innumerable people have pondered in good faith the possible ways to cure and to control sex offenders, when a proposal comes along with a "solution" this cruel, this permanent, it smacks less of "cure" than of sadistic punishment.

It is ironic that Sen. Hanger's Web site touts his Christian background: "I try to guide my decisions based on biblical instruction including the 10 commandments and I believe strongly that our form of representative democracy cannot survive, at least in a manner that is efficient and affordable, unless the majority of our citizens are 'Godly' people and are willing and capable of assuming their role as responsible citizens in a free society." See here. Unfortunately, Sen. Hanger seems to have skipped over the teachings of the most famous wrongly convicted man in history. Somehow, I can't imagine Christ calling for a sex offender's testicles to be cut off.

In Patrick Kennedy v. Louisiana, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5262 (June 25, 2008), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty is unconstitional for cases of child rape. Among other things, the court recognized that "the problem of unreliable, induced, and even imagined child testimony" might just send an innocent man to his death. The Court explained: "Studies conclude that children are highly susceptible to suggestive questioning techniques like repetition, guided imagery, and selective reinforcement. . . . . See Ceci & Friedman, The Suggestibility of Children: Scientific Research and Legal Implications, 86 Cornell L. Rev. 33, 47 (2000) (there is "strong evidence that children, especially young children, are suggestible to a significant degree--even on abuse-related questions"); Gross, Jacoby, Matheson, Montgomery, & Patil, Exonerations in the United States 1989 Through 2003, 95 J. Crim. L. & C. 523, 539 (2005) (discussing allegations of abuse at the Little Rascals Day Care Center); see also Quas, Davis, Goodman, & Myers, Repeated Questions, Deception, and Children's True and False Reports of Body Touch, 12 Child Maltreatment 60, 61-66 (2007) (finding that 4- to 7-year-olds "were able to maintain [a] lie about body touch fairly effectively when asked repeated, direct questions during a mock forensic interview").

"Similar criticisms pertain to other cases involving child witnesses; but child rape cases present heightened concerns because the central narrative and account of the crime often comes from the child herself. She and the accused are, in most instances, the only ones present when the crime was committed. See Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 60, 107 S. Ct. 989, 94 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1987). Cf. Goodman, Testifying in Criminal Court, at 118."

Lopping off a man's balls isn't in the same class as sentencing him to death, but it isn't as far removed as proponents of this heartless, spiteful bill probably think. If the man was wrongly convicted, Sen. Hanger's awful, permanent "cure" can't be undone.

_______________________

I leave you with a story, related by the late Michael Musmanno, the flamboyant and brilliant Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice. In his dissenting opinion in Washington Park, Inc. Appeal, 425 Pa. 349 (1967), Justice Musmanno related the following, about one of the most famous injustices ever perpetrated by American courts:

"Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, two workingmen in Massachusetts, were sentenced to death after a trial admittedly saturated with error. As one of the attorneys in the case I filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States. The date of execution was set for August 22, 1927. The Supreme Court was not to meet until the following October. A stay of execution was imperative if the Supreme Court was to pass on living litigation. I applied to the Chief Justice and two Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, all of whom refused to grant the stay. I made application to the Governor of Massachusetts, he refused the stay. I turned to the President of the United States because by this time the Sacco-Vanzetti case had taken on international significance and the heads of many governments had indicated they feared a great injustice would result if the two doomed workingmen went to the electric chair with half of the world believing them innocent. The President declined to intervene.

"On August 22, 1927, the men, who were undoubtedly innocent, were executed. Two months later the Supreme Court met and one of the first items of its business was consideration of the pending petition for writ of certiorari, the one I had filed. The Court was formally advised that the petition was now moot because Sacco and Vanzetti were dead."

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

This blog keeps getting more and more popular. Today, we topped our all-time high for unique viewers in one month. As of 11:00 p.m. January 25, we had 102,335 unique visitors for the month of January, with more than six days to go.

The callous indifference of the persons who dominate the public discourse about rape to the plight of the falsely accused is a blatant injustice that resonates far, far beyond the men's rights movement. Help us continue to spread the word -- tell everyone you know about this site -- and thanks, so very much, for all of your support.

This blog keeps getting more and more popular. Today, we topped our all-time high for unique viewers in one month. As of 11:00 p.m. January 25, we had 102,335 unique visitors for the month of January, with more than six days to go.

The callous indifference of the persons who dominate the public discourse about rape to the plight of the falsely accused is a blatant injustice that resonates far, far beyond the men's rights movement. Help us continue to spread the word -- tell everyone you know about this site -- and thanks, so very much, for all of your support.

Police arrested a 16-year-old female from Yorktown for making a false statement.

On Nov. 12 at 12:30 a.m. the teen reported to police she had been sexually groped by a taxi driver while she took a local cab home from a friend's house. The incident, she alleged, had occurred the previous day at 7 p.m.

Detective Timothy Tausz was assigned to investigate and found the facts surrounding the incident were not true, police said.

On Dec. 29, the girl, whose name police did not release, surrendered herself to police. She was charged with third-degree falsely reporting an incident, a misdemeanor.

In the news story posted below, at the end of this post, a 15-year-old girl was convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice for telling a rape lie that caused the boy she accused, who was just 14, to be arrested. She claimed she was raped, but the court rejected her defense, and she was convicted. Yet, according to the news story: "The decision to prosecute the girl, now 16, was criticised by anti-rape campaigners. Lisa Longstaff, of the campaign group Women Against Rape, said: 'It is awful that a girl so young has been prosecuted in this way.'"Read that again, and let it sink in.

If the girl's lie had its intended effect, would anyone have objected if the boy had been tried (and in many jurisdictions, he might have been tried as an adult) for the rape of an innocent young woman? Would anyone have said "it's awful" that a boy so young should be prosecuted?"

The question scarcely survives its statement.

So, why the double standard, Ms. Longstaff? Why are you intent on treating 15-year-old young women -- who, on average, are more mature in every measurable way than 14-year-old boys -- as if they are infants and not free moral agents who ought to know better? Why is the sexual grievance industry so intent on shielding false rape accusers from the responsibilities of their vile acts?

For every other criminal act, our society believes that punishing the wrongdoer, among other things, has the effect of deterring other would-be criminals. Why is that not a concern when women lie about rape?

When anti-rape campaigners inject themselves into cases where there was no rape, when they advocate on behalf of rape liars, they aren't helping rape victims. In almost every false rape case, judges and police officers bemoan the harm done to actual rape victims by the lies told by false rape accusers. The advocacy here by Women Against Rape trivializes rape by conflating rape victims with false rape accusers; by enabling would-be false rape accusers to spin their lies and possibly hurt other flesh-and-blood men and boys; and by diminishing the integrity of every woman who legitimately cries rape. In short, this unconscionable advocacy hurts not only innocent men and boys but actual rape victims.

Somehow, it seems they don't care that their advocacy is having the opposite effect of its stated intent to help rape victims. How could that be, and what, exactly, is really going on here?

When anti-rape crusaders advocate on behalf of rape liars, they are pursuing what can only be described as a politicized, gender-divisive agenda that seems intended to announce to all that world that the victimization of our sons is not worthy of society's attention. When it comes to even far-fetched claims of rape, men and boys have no entitlement to the mantle of victimhood.

This mentality, of course, smells of feminist bloodlust, an ugly desire for payback for the purported past sins of the "patriarchy." Even though the 14-year-old male victim in this case is a real victim, and even though he had nothing to do with any past sins of the "patriarchy."

Shame on you, Lisa Longstaff. Your advocacy here is disgraceful.

I hope that Ms. Longstaff doesn't have a teenage son who someday might be falsely accused of rape. Perhaps then she will understand that the falsely accused are treated no better than flotsam, collateral damage in the "more important" war on rape. In "he said/she said" rape claims involving two teens, even though either one of the parties might be guilty of a crime (rape for him, perverting the course of justice for her) the boy alone is routinely arrested and charged, while the girl is treated as a "victim." Boys are often subjected to indignities in detention, inflicted either by the staff or other inmates. Even when they are exonerated, they are expected to just "take it like a man." The experience of being falsely accused of rape is inhumane generally, but doubly so when it happens to a teenage boy.

The district judge concluded that the girl knew that claiming she had been raped would get the boy into trouble. It was possible, the judge added, that the girl had lied because she feared she was pregnant or it could be that she had lied to "cover her tracks."

In other words, just another day in our false rape society.

(If you want to read more about how false rape claims are treated in 21st Century America, with all its supposed enlightenment, see here.)

Decision to prosecute 16-year-old, 15 at the time of the alleged rape, is criticised by anti-rape campaigners

A girl who claimed she was raped when she was a 15-year-old virgin was today convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice by making a false allegation.

The girl told police that a 14-year-old boy had raped her in his bedroom and she had been "too scared" to cry out to her friends.

But after a three-day trial at a youth court in Cheltenham, a district judge decided the girl had had consensual sex with the boy and had lied to police and the court. The girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, will be sentenced next month.

The decision to prosecute the girl, now 16, was criticised by anti-rape campaigners.

Lisa Longstaff, of the campaign group Women Against Rape, said: "It is awful that a girl so young has been prosecuted in this way."

The girl, from Gloucestershire, claimed she was raped by the boy in his bedroom under his bedclothes. She said she "froze" and though she told him quietly to stop, she did not call out to her friends for help.

But the prosecution said the girl's account of the alleged rape was "riddled with lies".

Julian Kesner, prosecuting, said she had changed her story, at first saying just the two of them were in the bedroom but later admitting that two other friends were also there.

Kesner said that the day after the alleged attack the girl was spotted holding hands with the boy.

Giving evidence, the girl said she went to the boy's home with a female friend and after the game of truth and dare, the boy "nagged" her to have sex with him but she had repeatedly said she did not want to.

Then when he asked her three or four times to lie down on the bed, she did so just to stop him nagging. She claimed the boy covered them both with duvets, took down her trousers and underclothes, and had sex with her even though she whispered to him to stop.

In his closing speech, the girl's solicitor, Stephen Thomas, said: "She did not consent to have sex with him and she believes that he raped her."

The district judge, Joti Bopa Rai, concluded that the girl consented to sex with the boy, who was arrested over the allegation. She knew that claiming she had been raped would get the boy into trouble, the judge said.

It was possible, the judge added, that the girl had lied because she feared she was pregnant or it could be that she had lied to "cover her tracks". "That lie grew bigger and bigger and bigger," she added.

The judge said she appreciated that the defendant was young but she came across as intelligent. "She knew the consequence of this lie," the judge said.

In the news story posted below, at the end of this post, a 15-year-old girl was convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice for telling a rape lie that caused the boy she accused, who was just 14, to be arrested. She claimed she was raped, but the court rejected her defense, and she was convicted. Yet, according to the news story: "The decision to prosecute the girl, now 16, was criticised by anti-rape campaigners. Lisa Longstaff, of the campaign group Women Against Rape, said: 'It is awful that a girl so young has been prosecuted in this way.'"

When former Senator Arlen Specter told Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann to "act like a lady," he was widely chastised for his "sexist" remark and was forced to apologize. See here.

Yet, women are permitted to tell men to "man up" with impunity. During last fall's senatorial campaign, Sharron Angle, Robin Carnhan, Christine O'Donnell and Jane Norton -- all women -- verbally attacked their male opponents by telling them to "man up." See here. Sarah Palin has also used the term "man up" and has questioned the president's “cojones.” See here.

Virtually no one thought any of that was improper.

A male politician is not permitted to tell a female politician to "act like a lady" because of -- what? -- negative historical connotations about what it means to act like a lady? And if a male politician dared to tell a female politician to "man up," or questioned her "cojones," he'd not only be considered sexist, but worse, strange.

So, what gender allusions can a male politician make about a female politician?

None.

Nor should female politicians make gender allusions about male politicians. And if we truly believed in equality instead of only citing it when it works in women's favor, we'd call women out on their sexism when they chide a male politician for not "manning up."

Here's the bottom line, women: you have no more right to dictate that a man behave in accordance with your notions of masculinity than a man has the right to dictate that you behave in accordance with his notions of femininity.

Monday, January 24, 2011

The despair and decay that is Baltimore has crept west and landed on the shores of Lake Erie. And once again, a mayor, a city's sexual grievance industry, and a major U.S. daily have joined hands to insist that rape victims are being mistreated.

In once-promising Cleveland, a policy change in the way police handle rape claims could have the tragic effect of causing law enforcement to offer up innocent males just to appease the rape goddesses. The rust belt is now officially the "Rape Belt."

Cleveland police are being criticized for supposedly improperly clearing rape cases that should not have been cleared, thus giving the impression they have solved more crimes than they really have. How do police do this dastardly thing? They sometimes clear cases before a suspect is identified, that's how.

Read that again. Let it sink in. And then try to reconcile the policy requiring that there be a suspect before a case can be closed with the news stories we report on every day in this blog -- where there are no legitimate suspects, because the rape claims are lies.

According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, in order to clear a case without an arrest -- a classification known as "exceptional clearance" -- the police are supposed meet all of the following criteria: (1) Clearly identify at least one of the offenders and know the suspect's whereabouts; (2) Have enough evidence to support an arrest, charges and prosecution; and (3) Be prevented from making an arrest by a reason outside their control.

Cleveland Police Deputy Chief Edward Tomba disagrees, and rightly so. "'We have numerous cases where a suspect never gets identified, and we clean that case up,' he said. 'To me, that category of exceptional clearance, that's just the way we've done it for 30 years.'"

The next paragraph is a sterling example of a law enforcement officer speaking common sense:

"Tomba said that whether a case has been cleared or is considered open is an arbitrary semantic distinction. Cases are cleared when the investigation hits a wall, he said, but any case could be reopened if new information were to emerge within the 20-year statute of limitations."

But common sense, as always, is trumped by political correctness. According to the Plain Dealer: "The [police] policy, however, specifically states that exceptionally cleared cases are considered closed. 'I'd consider those cases cold, not necessarily closed,' Tomba said of the dozens of improperly cleared cases. 'Really, it's just words. So instead of 60 exceptional cleanups, you'd have 60 open cases? OK, but they'd still be sitting in the same place -- not being investigated.'"

So how are rape cases presently cleared in Cleveland? The same way they are cleared everywhere that police are permitted to do their jobs unfettered by policitical correctness run amok. ". . . when it comes to clearing cases, Tomba said detectives take their cues from city prosecutors, who review the results of the investigation and determine whether there is enough evidence to move forward. If not -- and detectives say they have no further investigative leads -- the case typically is closed. One of three supervisors in the unit signs off on the decision, Tomba said. And once it's closed, detectives will revisit the investigation only if a witness comes forward with new information."

This is a recognition of reality. For the vast majority of rape cases, no one -- except the accuser and, where applicable, the accused -- can say what, if anything, happened. The policy of requiring a suspect to be identified is a manifestation of a mindset that women don't lie about rape, and that every claim represents an actual rape. That is simply far from true.

Several months ago, Mayor Frank Jackson appointed a rape panel to track promised changes to the way police investigate sexual assault. Who do you suppose serves on the committee? After all, for every other municipal panel assembled, diversity is critical. Or, because this "rape," does this panel get a pass?

You guessed it. A white woman, Megan O'Bryan, president and chief executive of the Cleveland Rape Crisis Center, and two black women, serve on the Mayor's panel. Penis-bearing humans, as a class, are unfit, unqualified, and unwanted -- because "diversity" is only important when we are seeking to insure women are represented. There is no such thing as women being "over-represented."

Ms. O'Bryan spouts the usual narraitve: "It is in the public's best interest to create a community where victims are encouraged to report, and where they are believed and supported when they do."

Here we go again. Why can't we just say it's in the community's interest for victims to be encouraged to report, and to insure that all rape accusers are treated respectfully? It is not, however, in the community's interest to automatically "believe" every rape accuser. Such a policy does a grave disservice to the presumptively innocent men and boys they accuse since, by necessity, they must be guilty if their accusers are believed.

If police are dismissing rape claims without investigating, that is wrong, by any measure. Every rape claim needs to be take seriously. We report on case after case after case here where police recount the incredible man-hours they devote to spurious claims. But if some cases are treated cavalierly, is it any wonder? (And I'm not condoning that.) In case after case after case that we report here, judges, law enforcement personnel, and even members of what is aptly called the "sexual grievance industry" bemoan the harm to legitimate rape victims done by rape liars. A cry of "rape" is no longer sacrosanct, and if Ms. O'Bryan wants to combat rape, she would do well to pull her head up out of the sand and attack the people who diminish the integrity of rape claims, the false rape accusers. I will not hold my breath for Ms. O'Bryan to join our fight.

But from now on in Cleveland, to appease the people who dominate the public discourse about rape, in order to close a rape case, police will need to nab a suspect -- any hapless male will do -- arrest him, force him to disrobe to have pubic hairs removed for testing, photograph his genitals, interrogate him on and off for hours and hours, and then let him go. Don't dare apologize to him. Make him feel lucky he's being let go.

It is political correctness run amok. Sadly, this strange and woefully misguided policy -- this games playing with semantics -- could have the tragic effect of leading law enforcement to offer up innocent males just to appease the rape goddesses.

S.R., who was acquitted of several sex assault charges after a Durham judge ruled his accusers were not telling the truth, forcefully declared his innocence from the day he was arrested until he was cleared in court.

“The lies came out, but it took four years to get there,” he said. “Somebody has to be held responsible for what happened to me.”

He could sue his accusers, or the police, but that takes a lot of money. And the police have a viable defence at the ready: when accusations of serious sexual assault were brought to their attention, they simply did their job in making the arrest.

“I don’t want to take my money and hand it to a lawyer,” S.R. said. “I’m just getting back on my feet.”

Ray Collingham is hoping to sue. His defence lawyer, Graham Clark, has assembled a list of what he says were breaches of Mr. Collingham’s Charter rights following his arrest.

“I almost wept when I saw the video of Ray’s interview (with detectives),” Mr. Clark said. “The entire tenor of the interrogation was that he would be convicted.”

Of course, Mr. Collingham never would have been arrested had his former gymnastics student not made accusations of sexual assault. Perhaps surprisingly though, Mr. Collingham doesn’t harbour bad feelings toward the boy, who is now 19; he feels the boy was pressed to make false allegations by his mother, with whom Mr. Collingham clashed prior to the accusations coming to light.

“I understand he was put into this situation he didn’t want to be in and couldn’t get out of it,” Mr. Collingham said.

But he does feel anger toward the boy’s mother. Evidence at trial suggested she had manipulated e-mails between Mr. Collingham and her son to fabricate sexual overtones that Mr. Collingham testified weren’t there.

“Nothing happened to her at all,” he said.

Suing the police for a wrongful arrest is a lengthy, uphill battle, according to Maurice Kondell. The Whitby man was rising through the ranks of the Wendy’s restaurant chain — he had become the first African Canadian franchise owner — when he was arrested on allegations of sexual assault made by young female workers at his Oshawa store.

The charges against Mr. Kondell and another man were tossed out in 2006 when it was revealed that the accusers were conspiring to launch a lawsuit against the restaurant chain, throwing their credibility into doubt.

The judge apologized to the accused men before pronouncing them free to go.

Mr. Kondell filed a $5-million lawsuit against Durham police in early 2007. The case remains unresolved.

“I feel like my life is on hold,” Mr. Kondell said in a recent interview.

Despite the cost involved and the length of the civil process, Mr. Kondell is sticking with his claim. And he advises others who feel they’ve been prosecuted on flimsy allegations to do the same.

“The advice I would give would be to seek recourse — get a lawyer and file a claim,” he said.

“If we sit there silent, it will continue.”

Mr. Clark, who represented Mr. Collingham at trial, said there currently exists no mechanism, short of a lawsuit, for those who are prosecuted on false allegations.

“There is no recourse,” he said. “And acquittal is cold comfort in these circumstances.

“I believe there are systemic problems that perpetuate injustices that are hard to address,” Mr. Clark said.

In July, 2009, a major news story broke when a video surfaced on the Internet showing attractive ESPN sportscaster Erin Andrews in the nude. Ms. Andrews had been surreptitiously videotaped without her knowledge or consent through a hotel peephole. The story became not just an international sensation that was featured in every major news daily and on shows ranging from Oprah to Bill O’Reilly and pretty much everything in between, it also became a symbol of the way women purportedly are commonly violated and men aren’t. The gender police used the incident to tie the felonious act of a dysfunctional voyeur to the way “women on television are judged for not just what they know but what they look like.” See here. The fact that there is, of course, no such valid connection between the two is beside the point. In any event, saying that women are judged on their looks conveniently ignores the elephant in the room: Erin Andrew’s appeal to her mostly male audience is largely attributable to her indisputable beauty.

The feminist blogosphere was atwitter. Jessica Valenti wrote: “A lot of people have been talking and writing about Erin Andrews, the ESPN reporter who had a video taken without her knowledge – of her walking around a hotel room naked. Both FOX and CBS news have featured clips or pictures of the video and it’s a top Google Search right now.. . . Folks want to watch this – and people find it interesting – precisely because Erin Andrews didn’t know she was being filmed. And that reveals something really fucked up about the way American culture views women. That what we consider hot or sexy, is looking at naked pictures of women without their consent.” See here. It never occurred to Valenti that a lot of people consider it hot and sexy to look at naked young men without their consent. That doesn't fit the narrative.

The man who took the video was convicted. Ms. Andrews fumed that the court should not take mercy on the him: "I want him to stay in jail as long as possible," she said. "He's a threat to women everywhere. . . . I don't want somebody else's career to be ruined by this." See here. He was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment. See here.

Thousands and Thousands of Naked Male Athletes

Of course, most of us have heard all about the Erin Andrews affair. But how many of us have heard about the unauthorized videotapes made of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of naked male athletes at a wrestling tournament weigh-in and in locker rooms shot at several sporting events in the in the mid-to-late 90s?

This is how the New York Times described it: “Without their knowledge, the athletes were videotaped at urinals, at showers or weighing in unclothed at competitions. No camera was ever in open view, the students said. The tapes were made by employees or students working for video companies. Posing as athletic trainers, they were able to slip into the locker rooms carrying hidden cameras in gym bags.” See here. Their faces are shown, so it’s not difficult to identify them. See here. One of the violated athletes who saw one of the tapes conceded: "I could pick out everyone on the team and everyone on the other teams." See here.

A handful of the athletes who learned that their naked bodies were being used for erotic commerce sued the producers and marketers of the tapes. Their attorney, Louis S. Goldstein, got his hands on eight tapes, and he noted that there were many more out there. Read Mr. Goldstein's chilling quotation carefully: ''I know that we have at least 1,000 kids on eight tapes. There are many more tapes than eight, and usually there may be from 5 to 10 schools on each tape. This could eventually involve thousands and thousands of college athletes shown naked and being marketed and distributed world wide on videos and on the Web.'' See here.

What do you suppose would be the reaction if 1,000 young female college athletes were videotaped naked without their consent? Isn't it a reasonable assumption that it would be considered a landmark news story, and an iconic symbol of women's oppression, bigger than Lorena Bobbitt and Crystal Mangum (when she was still regarded as a "victim")?

The revelation about these tapes didn’t startle Todd Crosset, a sports-management professor at the University of Massachusetts with expertise in college sports sexuality issues. This was merely an escalation of a practice that is not unheard of, Crosset said. "People have been aware of videotaping in locker rooms and [are] sometimes suspicious of what individuals were doing with cameras," he said. See here.

If you think the young men were flattered by the attention, or that their victimization was somehow less important, less traumatic, or less humiliating than Erin Andrew’s, you’d be wrong: '''I pulled up the home page and I am looking at myself naked on the Internet,' said [one] former athlete, who spoke on the condition that neither his name nor his sport be identified. 'And everyone in the world has access to it. My parents have seen it now, and they are very upset. It is terrible because I have no control over it.’'' See here. One of the athletes, who spoke at a news conference from behind a screen said: "It's extremely violating. It's kind of like a lifelong illness." See here.

Unlike the Andrews case where everyone knew that a wrong had been committed, no one seemed so certain in the case of the male athletes: “Within the legal community, there is a debate on what criminal laws were violated, if any.” See here.

Some 46 athletes, just a fraction of the young men violated, sued the producers and marketers in a class action and were awarded a $506 million. See here. It seems unlikely any were able to recover on the judgment since the companies were not legitimate to begin with. The incidents did not lead to any criminal prosecutions.

No More Nude Weigh-Ins

In fact, in the age of cellphones, video voyeurism is a major concern at male wrestling weigh-ins, at both the high school and college level. Until very recently, weighing-in nude was a common practice in both. This custom was not a manifestation of perversity or a macho narcissism; rather, it was the product of a very competitive sport where a fraction of a pound can be crucial to victory or defeat. Unfortunately, the slow parade of nude athletes waiting their turn presented a golden opportunity for video voyeurs. Mainly due to privacy issues, in 2009, the NCAA enacted a rule change that wrestlers must weigh in wearing briefs, boxers or a competition singlet. Last year, the National Federation of State High School Associations ruled that competitors must weigh in wearing "suitable" undergarments to cover the buttocks and groin. See here.

Young athletes looking to do nothing more than make weight were thus punished by a rule change telling them to cover up, all because there are some sick video voyeurs out there. Funny, I heard no one use the term "victim blaming" here.

While privacy issues were important to these rules changes, they weren't the only concern. Can you guess the other concern? Yep: the NCAA cited "the increased number of female athletic trainers, doctors and administrators" as a reason to force the male athletes to cover their genitals. The National Federation of State High School Associations justified the rule change by noting, among other things: ". . . the rule accommodates female doctors and athletic trainers doing skin checks on males and vice versa so as 'not to exclude some of those people.'" Id. (The "vice versa seems gratuitous, since the vast majority of high wrestlers are male.)

So, you see, the naked weigh-in custom was just another form of female oppression.

Who Merits More Attention: One Hot ESPN Blond or Thousands and Thousands of Violated Male Athletes?

The question posed in the sub-heading scarcely survives its statement.

In fact, neither incident should be used to teach "gender" lessons. These stories merely illustrate that both men and women are victimized by dysfunctional criminals, but neither gender has a monopoly on victimization to crime (the fact is, men are victimized by strangers far more than women). But that doesn't stop people from assuming any time a woman is victimized, the incident holds wider "gender" lessons about female oppression. Erin Andrews' violation became an international issue; a hand-wringing talking point on the feminist blogosphere; and a symbol of an entire gender's purported oppression.

In contrast, the violation of a staggering number of male athletes was little publicized and quickly forgotten; no one suggested it was symptomatic, in any way, shape, or form, of oppression of males as a class; and it generated no outrage beyond the outrage from the young men violated and their families.

The lesson was that young male wrestlers really ought to cover up, because there are women present.